Peace Science Made Accessible, Understandable, and Useful.

The true cost of human life and why it matters

There are obvious differences between the human and financial costs of war, but their respective impact on war support needs to be further distinguished. This study helps bring attention to the unusual priorities behind war support in the United States – including the decline in war support when faced with financial costs but an indifference to human costs.

This study uses the combined approaches of multiple academic fields and the Environmental Protection Agency’s monetary evaluation of a human life to learn more about war support in the United States. The research team combines three academic theories: the sunk costs fallacy from behavioral economics, and the prospect theory and sacred values protection model from psychology. By merging these theories, the study seeks to determine whether human and financial sunk costs impact public opinion towards war differently.

Respondents from the United States were asked in a series of interviews about their level of support for different war scenarios costing various amounts of money and/or human lives. By factoring in the Environmental Protection Agency’s $7.4 million evaluation for a human life, researchers can measure the respondent’s attitude towards war’s financial costs to understand if the American public is more affected by human or financial casualties during war.

The combination of the above theories, along with past research and the human/financial cost of war equation, led to the creation of the ‘don’t let them die in vain’ hypothesis. This phrase is commonly used by politicians urging for continued war support (Bill Clinton in 2005; George Bush in 2006; and even Abraham Lincoln in his 1865 Gettysburg Address). The hypothesis states that loss of human life during war would increase public war support more than the loss of money spent on the war. The authors also propose that: a) human sunk costs will be more influential on war support than financial sunk costs; b) the American public is more willing to send money than troops to assist an ally during war; c) human and financial sunk costs are treated differently; and d) both human and financial sunk costs will increase war support.

Interestingly, the research findings often differed from the original hypotheses. The sunk cost fallacy had little relevance to United States war support. Even more surprising was that: a) financial sunk costs led to a decrease in American war support, while human sunk costs had no impact at all; and b) the American public has no preference over fighting a war with money or with American soldiers.

This research exposes important misconceptions in U.S. foreign policy and public war support. Many have argued that the human and economic costs of any war are too high. However, the above findings may help to bring attention to the unusual priorities behind war support and the way political leaders can use public opinion to their advantage (*1).

Contemporary Relevance

Differentiating between human and financial costs of war is especially relevant to many of the foreign policy decisions faced by every U.S. administration. The U.S. strategy for addressing security concerns has largely shifted from using large numbers of military personnel to using the country’s financial resources. This is exemplified by approaches like the active drone program or the billions spent on arming and training the militaries of other countries.

A major takeaway from this research is the blatant disregard to morality we have grown accustomed to when prescribing value to a human life. Perpetual wars have drastically desensitized people to the loss of life, leading to the belief that the citizens of a country have become more dispensable than their financial security.

This information gap between the public and its country’s wars also supports the increasingly recognized gap between the military and the rest of the population (*2). The United States’ wars are not fought at home, leading to a physical and emotional disconnect between the public and those on the front lines. It has become more common for the public to disassociate themselves from their country’s military unless they maintain a direct personal bond such as an active-duty family member or veteran.

Talking Points

In the U.S., financial sunk costs create a desire to leave a war.

In the U.S., the number of casualties during war has little effect on public war support.

There is no difference in public opinion between providing an ally with military personnel vs. providing financial assistance.

Using sunk costs to justify an ongoing war does not work—the U.S. public doesn’t support the ‘Don’t Let Them Die in Vain’ argument.

If the expected benefits are no longer perceived as being worth the costs, voters will not support a war

Practical Implications

This research suggests that the public generally disagrees with the ‘Don’t Let Them Die in Vain’ mentality. Under every condition throughout the study, human and financial sunk costs did not lead to an increase of war support.

Therefore, government leaders should not attribute the withdrawal from a conflict as a betrayal to those that died fighting in it. Rather, as this research suggests, they should seriously weigh the supposed benefits of going to war against its high human and financial costs – and make the various options and justification for their decisions available to the public.

Considering the number of human casualties did not lower war support, this may suggest the public lacks a clear understanding of the true costs of military action. If made more aware of the human and economic costs of war before committing financial or human resources, there may be a decrease in war support. Activists and public officials who position themselves against war can use this information to address their intended audiences.

Key Words: war support, costs of war, public opinion

Prospect Theory: People value potential gains and losses differently. Therefore, if a person were given two equal choices, they would risk more when faced with a potential loss than if they were faced with a potential gain.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy: The increased commitment in the midst of failure with the hope of recouping costs that have already been exhausted, even when more effective alternatives exist.

Sacred Values Protection Model: It is impossible to accurately relate a monetary value to human life, and that even trying to compare the two goes against human morality.

Popular Posts

01

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.